Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

J’accuse

Power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. – Rudyard Kipling

I’m sure most of you have been following the whole Dominique Strauss-Kahn unpleasantness, at least in a cursory fashion; and I know some of you are interested in what I think about it, because several of you have asked me. Unfortunately, I honestly don’t know what to think, so I’ll just settle for synopsizing the mess and concluding with my analysis of the way the media has covered it and the unpleasant conclusions I am forced to draw from that coverage.

The affair started on Saturday, May 14th when Dominque Strauss-Kahn, a prominent French socialist and manager of the International Monetary Fund since 2007, was arrested on charges that he had sexually assaulted a Guinean maid named Nafissatou Diallo in his room at the Manhattan Sofitel. The police made a great Roman triumph of parading him before the cameras (as they are wont to do in these barbaric times), and he was thrown into a high-security prison and denied bail on the grounds that he was a flight risk. He resigned from his IMF post on Wednesday, May 18th, and the next day he surrendered his passport and was released to house arrest (at his daughter’s New York home) under condition of electronic monitoring.

Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers insisted that the encounter with the maid was consensual, but as I pointed out in my column of one year ago today it is a rare woman who has sex with a stranger without some other motivation, and as Laura Agustín pointed out it is unlikely “that a migrant person who has managed to obtain a steady job with an employer of some reputation, Sofitel, would risk losing that job. Her employment is important to the case because for a migrant it means legal security of a kind not easily available, and on the basis of this alone I find it hard to imagine Diallo would fabricate an accusation against a guest, or engage in a sexual romp with one, for that matter.” I agree, but at the same time I also agree with Furry Girl that it is a big mistake to automatically believe in the truth of every allegation of sexual assault. So when Kristin Davis attempted to capitalize on DSK’s misfortune by tattling on his supposed past behavior with escorts, I responded by inducting her into my Hall of Shame and pointing out that “just because a client is rough with a working girl does not…constitute evidence of rape any more than reading a book about explosives means that a person is guilty of a bombing.”

In other words, I was (and remain) extremely uncertain about the case and was therefore unwilling to say anything one way or another. I remained silent when a French reporter accused him of trying to rape her in 2002 and when a new book accused him of raping a Mexican maid and trying to “jump” at least 14 other women; then I waited to see if anything would come of Diallo’s hiring a French lawyer to dig these women up. But on July 2nd the tabloid New York Postreported that prosecutors had told them Diallo was a “pathological liar and scam artist” who was accused of defrauding other immigrants from her country with a pyramid scheme, lying to prosecutors and on her immigration papers and tax forms, falsely claiming to have been gang-raped in Guinea and saying to her boyfriend (on a phone line monitored at his end, in an Arizona jail), “Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.” So why is all this pertinent to this blog? She’s also accused of prostituting herself to Sofitel guests.

Needless to say, Diallo has sued the Post; it is equally needless to say that the case against DSK quickly unraveled after the counter-accusations. If this woman really did subject an innocent man to an extortion scheme, she deserves whatever she gets; as I said in my June 4th column, being a sexually aggressive arsehole does not make a man a rapist, and false rape accusations hurt all women by making the “authorities” more cynical about future rape accusations. But that’s not the most important feature of this whole thing, which is the way that our profession is being slandered yet again. It wasn’t enough just to say she had been accused of fraud and extortion; oh no! The Post’s headline screamed, “DSK MAID A HOOKER”, because as we all know that’s much worse than being a pathological liar and scamming one’s own people. Considering that sources close to the case say the accusation isn’t even true (and that seems likely considering her libel suit doesn’t mention the other allegations), why would the Post use that particular insult (and other media follow it like lemmings) when there are other, more solid and serious accusations to choose from? Well, for one thing, sex sells. But more importantly, branding Diallo as a whore allows the media to evoke the filthy lie that prostitutes cannot be raped, thus letting Strauss-Kahn off the hook (perhaps a consummation devoutly to be wished by media bigwigs who embarrassed themselves by convicting him in the court of public opinion practically as soon as he was arrested).

This is the real story, and the real shame on the American people: nobody would’ve dared to say Strauss-Kahn must be a criminal because he is French, or Diallo one because she is black; nobody but the most fanatical neofeminists would’ve pre-convicted DSK for being a man, and none but the most bitter misogynists would’ve pre-convicted Diallo for being a woman. Likewise rich or poor, privileged or underprivileged, politician or peasant. But let someone be accused of being a prostitute, and there are still far too many in this country (especially among the police, religious fanatics and neofeminists) who instantly accept that as irrefutable evidence of innate moral corruption and pronounce that any woman who could “degrade” herself by {gasp!} having sex and making a living at the same time, is capable of any crime no matter how depraved.

i dont want to jump to conclusions either but from the begginning i had my doubts about the alleged rape.i think of possible conspiracy so that he wouldnt become president of france . americans are not new to getting rid of politicians that have come to any disagreement with as far as defending their interests in the foreign affairs(meaning not becoming their lap dogs) or even non politicians that have considered a threat.the guy from wikileaks that hacked cia is percecuted for sexual crimes as well(he brought to light things about the us foreign affairs that included direct threat to the life of the former greek prime minister if he didnt quit because of an agreement with russians about natural gas which meant bad business for them and becase they wanted the new prime minister to come, who is their lap dog)dsk could easily have come to disagreement over a matter with them or maybe they just didnt want him to become president knowing that he as a socialist wouldnt be as in favor of them as a right winger politician.of course it sucks that people think that a prostitute cannot possibly be raped but in this case im very reluctunt to take the girls side,not only because of the many contradictions and the otherwise unreliable witness but also because considering what the us politicians are capable of to ensure that everything will go as they wish, i think that she was paid to accuse dsk of rape is a very strong possibility.

Yep … saw this mentality in the Navy where the “Family Advocacy” organizations are running amok with it.

Any domestic dispute – the man is always guilty – even if there are no marks on the woman and witnesses corroborate the man’s side of the story. I have sat in counselling sessions where I was simply a representative for the command to ensure the Sailor got fair treatment – I certainly have no interest in protecting wife-beaters and would never do so. On the cases where I thought the Sailor was guilty – I said so. On those where there was clear doubt he was, or clear evidence he was innocent – I said so. Got told the same things … “The women never lie about this” and “The men always lie about this”.

Family Advocacy was so out of control – they were the agency of choice to call if your neighbor’s had a loud party. I kid you not. I had a Sailor just returned off a 1 year deployment – and his family threw him a “Welcome Home” party. FAP (Family Advocacy) received a call about the party – and they immediately alerted Child Protective Services … who immediately converged on the party to see if any children were being exposed to alcohol – and they even checked the Sailor’s refrigerator for proper food for the kiddies to ensure they were being fed correctly.

The reason why her possibly being a prostitute on the side of her chambermaid job for some Sofitel guests is so significant is that it supplies a motive for why she might have agreed to perform oral sex on a stranger. In all the debating over this I’ve seen no one say that if she’s a hooker forcing her to have sex wasn’t rape. No one’s even said that her being a hooker lessens her credibility – other things that you’ve mentioned have done that.

The other plausible motive of course is that she knew who he was ahead of time and that she had an extortion scheme through a follow on civil lawsuit in mind to begin with.

Maggie states, and there are still far too many in this country (especially among the police, religious fanatics and neofeminists) who instantly accept that as irrefutable evidence of innate moral corruption and pronounce that any woman who could “degrade” herself by {gasp!} having sex and….

I value Police stereotypes and wisdom of prostitutes because the police have the most boots-on-the ground observation of hookers, and stereotypes are mostly based upon the truth. If police regard hookers as morally corrupt , then it’s likely true.

You know, JZ, it must be nice to live in a world so idyllic that you actually trust cops; I sincerely hope you are able to stay that naive until the day you die, because it will mean neither you nor anyone you love was ever victimized by them…and that would make you a blessed minority.

I value Hooker stereotypes and wisdom of police because the prostitutes have the most boots-on-the ground observation of cops, and stereotypes are mostly based upon the truth. If hookers regard cops as morally corrupt , then it’s likely true.

Is that argument valid? If not, then neither is the argument I’m replying to.

You forget that I didn’t become a professional until I was 33 and retired five years ago. Obviously, you didn’t bother reading any of those links; most police brutality, corruption, maltreatment of citizens, lying and murder has nothing to do with prostitutes. The links are there for you to consider, but we all know the saying about leading a horse to water.

jz, are you a cop? If not, how many do you know? I know more than a few. And I trust almost NONE of them. My only crimes to date have been speeding violations. I’ve no grudge against cops. I can only judge them by their actions and words.

And prosecutors are much, much worse.

They don’t HAVE to be. There are honorable, decent prosecutors and police. But they are vastly outnumbered by greedy, power hungry bullies.

I worked in the courts of a suburban county and saw more rampant corruption than I could have previously imagined. Most of it relatively minor, some dodgy arrests, some questionable tactics…but I also saw two men on death row for crimes they did not commit. And it took almost 20 years to PROVE the police and prosecutorial misconduct that almost took their lives.

I don’t hate cops and prosecutors…but I don’t give them any more respect than I would anyone else.

What the hell does “morally corrupt” really mean? Morals are most often the results of some religious delusion. They are tied to that.

Now ethics are a different thing.

Does morally corrupt mean fucking for a living? I did that for over twenty years, and still have more ethics than some I can think of.

One of the big problem with cops is that 90% are drug-addicted. They’re addicted to one of the worst drugs of all, power. Talk about something that corrupts! We give cops way too much power.

I have relatives that work in policing, in the UK. I’ve noticed the difference in attitude. There, the average PC doesn’t carry a gun. I’ve seen them, stopped and chatted with them on the street. Mostly, they’re more relaxed, more open, have less of an attitude, because they aren’t drunk on power. (Sadly, some are.) Not carrying a gun means they have to work with the community more. They have to be more open and carry less attitude.

Contrast that to the USA, where the cops are mostly thugs with guns, driving around. Rarely do you see them just walking along the street, or being friendly.

Our whole model of policing is wrong. Cops should be public servants, not try to be the masters.

Hey Comixchik, make a few extra T-shirts, made, I’d buy teo, one for me and one to send to Jacob Zuma, illegitimate president of South Africa, although , in his case it should read ‘Moreally Bankrupt’
Sugus

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".